M/S Vatan Textile Limited Through Its Director Shafique Ahmed Khan Hasan Khan vs. The Union Of INDIA And Others
Held
The Court allowed the application for condonation of delay. It reasoned that the period from the Supreme Court's order on 22.04.2019 until the declaration of lockdown was sufficient to file the review application. However, it acknowledged that the Supreme Court had directed this Court to decide the matter on merits, which provided a good ground for condonation. The Court also noted that while the petitioner had ample opportunity, the inconvenience caused to the revenue due to the inability to recover the exchequer deserved compensation. Therefore, the delay was condoned upon the deposit of costs of Rs. 10,000/- within three weeks. The Court explicitly stated it was not going into the merits of the review application at this stage.
Facts
The applicant, M/s Vatan Textile Limited, is the original petitioner who filed Writ Petition No. 1346 of 2016 challenging an order dated 30.03.2015 by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which imposed a pre-deposit of 25% of the demand. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 24.11.2018. The petitioner challenged this before the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petitions, which were allowed on 22.04.2019, remanding the writ petition back to this Court with a direction to decide on merits after the petitioner invited attention to relevant provisions. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Civil Application No. 3658 of 2023 for amendment, which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a comprehensive review application on 18.04.2023. This led to a delay of 1626 days in filing the review application, for which the present Civil Application No. 8747 of 2023 seeks condonation. The respondents filed an affidavit-in-reply opposing the condonation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 1626 days in filing the review application is liable to be condoned, considering the procedural history and the directions of the Supreme Court? The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by the Supreme Court's remand order and subsequent proceedings, including the withdrawal of a prior amendment application with liberty to file a comprehensive review application. They contended that the Supreme Court itself condoned delay in their SLPs, indicating a favorable view. The respondents argued that the grounds for delay were not reasonable or appropriate, and no relevant documents were placed to substantiate the delay. They also raised points regarding the merits of the review petition and calculations of the pre-condition for deposit, though the Court stated it would not delve into merits at this stage.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER : (PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) 1 Present application has been filed for getting delay of 1626 days condoned in filing review application. 2 Applicant is the original petitioner, who had filed Writ Petition
2 CA_8747_2023 No.1346 of 2016 challenging the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, whereby condition of pre-depositing 25% of demand was imposed on the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, this Court had dismissed the writ petition on 24.11.2018. The said order was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court by preferring two Special Leave Petitions i.e. S.L.P. (D) No.8999 of 2019 and S.L.P. (D) No.9000 of
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.